Pirate stations getting hit

[Sonwatcher]

There have been a couple resent Pirate FM stations busted. The second url is sort of funny.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1942A1.html

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1935A1.html

 

[cyclops1970]

Actually, the second URL is very interesting.

A few threads back, we were talking about the "should hams rat out freebanders" issue, and I argued that as commission licensees, if hams knew something was going on and didn't report it, any subsequent FCC action against the violator may place the ham's license at risk.

Here we have an individual who claimed to have not owned the station in question, did not directly operate the station in question, and only supplied the real estate and electric power to operate the station.

So I suppose landlords are liable for the FCC infractions of their tenants as well? That's a significant broadening of the responsibility base, if you ask me.

 

[Sonwatcher]

I think what narrowed it down is first off she said nothing was going on and refused to allow an inspection of the garage. The infraction was taking place at her personal dwelling. When the inspection took place they found everything to operate the computer and radio was supplied by her personal dwelling and she refused to cut off the power switch that was located at the radio and computer and being supplied by an electric cable that led to her house.. She claimed that "someone eles" was doing it yet there was never anyone else found at the premises when the signal was going on and the inspection took place.

 

[chipotle]

Assuming Craig is a landlord of the offender, if Landlords were responsible for their tenants criminal acts, practically everyone of them would be subject to jail. Every apartment complex in California has at least one illegal drug user and quite often at least one drug dealer. Landlords have no duty to enforce laws on their property. The Landlord's duty is primarily for their tenants immediate safety which is almost always satisfied by not violating any building codes. As long as the Landlord is not in violation of any building codes, they have likely satisfied their duty.

If I were the Landlord in this matter, my defense would be that the lease agreement expressly prevented me from interfering with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the leased property and I feared being liable for trespass and being sued by the tenant were I to fiddle with (and possibly destroy) their electronic equipment. Also, helping out law enforcement has led to the criminal taking revenge on the witness or helper of law enforcement, and perhaps this worman rightfully feard for her personal and family's safety. Also, since the authorities were involved, she arguably did her best to not interfere with their ongoing and exhastive investigation all the while she cooperated to a reasonable extent, but had no duty beyond "reasonable cooperation".

 

[C2]

In the second case: The charge: willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act").

Is she guilty of this charge?

Her liability was reduced to $500. As a business lady, she is in her right to not shut down the equipment that she is not familiar with.

The feds need to do their homework and not pawn that off on someone else. Of course they have recourse, but not this. They need to find the real culprit of this act, employ the leverage they are afforded in doing so...in other words, "do" their job.

 

[cyclops1970]

If I were the Landlord in this matter, my defense would be that the lease agreement expressly prevented me from interfering with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the leased property and I feared being liable for trespass and being sued by the tenant were I to fiddle with (and possibly destroy) their electronic equipment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most leases have a clause that says something like "Tenant agrees to not participate in any illegal activity and said participation in such illegal activity will result in eviction and recovery of any damages, etc."?? I don't buy the argument that operating a pirate radio station constitues reasonable use of a leased property. If that's the case, then landlords have no ability to evict criminals at all.

Also, since the authorities were involved, she arguably did her best to not interfere with their ongoing and exhastive investigation all the while she cooperated to a reasonable extent, but had no duty beyond "reasonable cooperation".

Exactly. The FCC in this instance decided that since she exercised control over a) the power and b) the real estate, reasonable cooperation would have been to shut off the transmitter.

The FCC has essentially redefined what it means to be a "control operator" in this case.

 

[chipotle]

'I don't buy the argument that operating a pirate radio station constitues reasonable use of a leased property. If that's the case, then landlords have no ability to evict criminals at all.'

They cannot evict because the tenant is not using the property reasonably. There must be a breach of the lease before you can be evicted. Playing a broadcast is likely not a breach of the lease, since it is causing no harm the other other tenants, and doesn't violate any leave provision. They cannot convict alleged criminals unless they are causing unreasonable interferance with the other tenants use and enjoinment of the property. Criminals have equal rights to have their tenants honor the lease agreement. Most tenants are criminals to a certain extent, it is only when they begin to disturb the safety and enjoyment of their neighbors that they risk breaching the lesase agreement;

 

[Moleculo]

i believe Chipotle is right. I had to do some research on eviction laws a few years back for my own property. Even if they have a reason to evict, it still requires a court order to do so, which can take months. Even with an eviction order, the tenant can stil file a counter suit, preventing the action.

In fact, the lanlord is only responible for protecting tenants from illegal activity that threatens their health or wellfare. This example is neither. Also, it is illegal for a landlord to turn of the power or any other utilities that service the tenant. The FCC has flat out blown this one and if the landlord was inclined could fight and win this very easily. As far as I can tell (I'm not an attorney) their fine and justification for the fine is in direct conflict with almost every state's landlord / tenant laws.

 

[N8YX]

Some of you might find *This link* to be quite interesting. Pay attention to the proposed transmitter 'upgrades' as detailed in the Oct. 2 entry.

And the gent thinks he'll get away with running such a station...

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

What a fruitcake. :roll: Look at the Aug 22/06 entry. He figures he can run as much power as he wants to, even 50Kw, and if he uses a dummy load all will be fine and legal because the radiated field does not excede part 15 regs.Sure go ahead and do that and let a 5 watt tx feeding an actual antenna put out a better signal. WHY would anyone run high power and then screw up the radiated signal in order to keep within part 15 limits? Either way there is NO way he is in compliance with part 15 limits given his signal reports.Why hasn't the FCC done something? This guy is a blight to all hams.

 

[C2]

As far as I understand, with the Lady, she is renting her garage, which is not an occupied dwelling. But the exact circumstances are not really well defined.

I still feel that a good attorney could get her off on the NAL fines, but why bother for $500, just pay the fine and move on with life.

 

[Sonwatcher]

I may be missing something but I didn't see anywhere where the garage was being rented.

she claimed to have no
knowledge of a radio station and that some other people were working
on a project in her garage.

When she was asked who the owner of the radio equipment
was, she refused to answer.

Sounds sort of fishy

Craig provided the garage and real property on
which the operation took place, and provided the electric current used
to power the radio station.

"The electricity for the operation
came off the main power line to the garage. The current then ran from
the garage to Craig's residence, via underground cables."

"Provided" could mean free to use as in the sense of the electric "provided".

The garage was on her dwelling property behind her house.

Craig also
acknowledged to San Diego agents that she was aware that the station
was operating on her property, apparently, with her permission.

 

[Sonwatcher]

Now a question. I have heard many times that when a cb station is found during an inspection to be or able to operate unlawfully they will confiscate the equipment. Why not in this case ?

 

[chipotle]

We don't know what the relationship to the lady and the owner of the equipment is. Maybe only she and the owner know. But I would not advise anyone to turn off someone elses electrical equipment without their consent, if they have your permission to use the premises. What if she presses the wrong button and she turns off power going to a neighbors residence, or what if she turns the wrong button and a fire starts, or she gets electrocuted? These risks, however small, are enough so a cautious person would not fiddle with electrical equipment they know nothing about, even if the FCC or local law enforcement "told" me to do it. I personally wouldn't do it absent a court order. If the FCC wants it off they should turn it off and take the risk, not try to shift the risk to another. The FCC was obviously unsure about what was going on, or they would have done it themselves.

 

[cyclops1970]

We don't know what the relationship to the lady and the owner of the equipment is. Maybe only she and the owner know. But I would not advise anyone to turn off someone elses electrical equipment without their consent, if they have your permission to use the premises.

Yes, but I own the premises. I supply the power. And the land. Do I not have any culpability for what my tenants do? Under the drug laws of today, property of a third person is subject to seizure if it is used in the commission of drug crimes, so it only makes sense that I would be at least partially liable for the actions of my tenants.

What if she presses the wrong button and she turns off power going to a neighbors residence, or what if she turns the wrong button and a fire starts, or she gets electrocuted?

Then she was acting as an agent (or at the direction of) an agent of the federal government. The United States of America is the responsible party.

These risks, however small, are enough so a cautious person would not fiddle with electrical equipment they know nothing about, even if the FCC or local law enforcement "told" me to do it. I personally wouldn't do it absent a court order.

She's on the hook for this one to the tune of $500..which is a reduced amount. For being "cautious". The prudent person would do everything in their power to satisfy the authorities...not refuse them. And besides, we all know the FCC operates outside the normal court system...so a court order is out of the question.

If the FCC wants it off they should turn it off and take the risk, not try to shift the risk to another. The FCC was obviously unsure about what was going on, or they would have done it themselves.

AGREED!

There's either one of two things happening here in my opinion:

1) she really is not guilty and is being railroaded

or

2) she's guilty as sin and the FCC decided to play along and see what hoops they could get her to jump thru...